Kanon Perjanjian Lama dan Mitos Konsili Jamnia milik Yahudi

Kebanyakan mitos dipercayai bukan karena mitos-mitos tersebut benar tapi sekedar
karena orang ingin mempercayainya. Tapi angan-angan bukan pengganti suatu
kebenaran. Selalu lebih baik untuk menggali lebih dalam dan menemukan fakta-faktanya
dan tidak mempercayai sesuatu hanya karena engkau menghendaki agar itu menjadi
kebenaran.
Sebagai contoh, cukup populer dalam kalangan Protestant tertentu untuk meng-klaim
bahwa orang Yahudi mempunyai kanon Kitab Suci yang telah ditutup pada abad pertama,
dan bahwa umat Kristen awal menerima koleksi Yahudi yang final atas tulisan-tulisan
ter-ilhami tersebut sebagai [keputusan yang juga] final dan mengikat Gereja. Umumnya,
Konsili Jabneh (biasanya disebut literatur Katolik sebagai Jamnia) diasumsikan sebagai
“bukti” atas klaim ini. Pada “Konsili Jabneh,” para Rabi Yahudi, dikatakan berkumpul —
seperti konsili ekumenis di Gereja Katolik — untuk menetapkan kriteria spesifik bagi
Kitab Suci yang ter-ilhami dan pada akhirnya mendefinisikan dan menutup kanon
Perjanjian Lama.
Apakah ini benar?
Pertama-tama, kita akan melihat bagaimana berbagai penulis memper-tahankan
pengecualian Protestant atas tujuh buku [ie. Deuterokanonika] yang didasarkan atas
pemahaman yang cacat atas apa yang disebut “Konsili Jabneh.”
Kedua, apakah anggota-anggota “konsili” ini benar-benar mendiskusikan batasan kanon
Perjanjian Lama,
dan ketiga, kalau memang begitu, apakah mereka mempunyai otoritas untuk menutup
kanon? Keempat, apakah mereka benar-benar mengkompilasi sebuah daftar final
mengenai tulisan-tulisan yang diakui, dan, kelima — dan yang penting — bila keputusan
semacam itu telah dibuat, apakah umat Kristen terikat oleh keputusan itu? Kita akan
mengakhiri dengan ajaran Gereja Katolik dan mengapa kita bisa mempercayai [ajaran
tersebut].
Mari mengklarifikasi beberapa istilah. [Yang dimaksud] kanon Kitab Suci adalah koleksi
final dari buku-buku ter-ilhami yang dimasukkan dalam Alkitab. Alkitab katolik
mengandung tujuh buku yang tidak tampak di Perjanjian Lama Protestant. Tujuh tulisan
ini disebut sebagai deuterokanonika atau Hukum Kedua [catatan DeusVult:
“deuterokanonika” = “kanon tambahan.” Disebut “tambahan” karena baru diterima
belakangan. Perjanjian Baru pun mempunyai buku-buku yang diterima belakangan alias
“deuterokanonika,” yaitu surat Yohanes, Surat Yakobus, Surat kepada umat Ibrani dan
Wahyu]. Protestant biasanya menyebut tujuh tulisan ini Apokripha (yang berarti
tersembunyi), buku-buku yang menurut mereka berada diluar kanon. Termasuk didalam
tujuh tulisan ini adalah Makabe 1 dan 2, Tobit, Yudit, Sirakh, Kebijaksanaan Salomo, dan
Barukh, dan juga tambahan-tambahan untuk Daniel dan Ester. Sebelum jaman Kristus,
tulisan-tulisan ini dimasukkan dalam Septuaginta Yunani para Yahudi (disebut juga
LXX)—yaitu terjemahan Yunani atas Kitab Suci Yahudi—namun [tujuh buku dan
tambahan-tambahan tersebut] tidak diikutkan dalam teks Masoretic Ibrani. [catatan
DeusVult: Septuaginta tidak hanya mengandung tambahan deuterokanonika saja tapi juga
buku-buku lain seperti Makabe III, Makabe IV dan lain-lain. Buku-buku lain tersebut
dinilai oleh Gereja Katolik sebagai bukan bagian kanon PL meskipun baik untuk dibaca]
Kanon Yahudi
Kebanyakan orang Yahudi pada abad pertama sebelum masehi dan abad pertama sesudah
masehi tinggal diluar Israel. Mereka disebut diaspora, [yang artinya] mereka yang
tersebar di semerata Kekaisaran Roma. Banyak dari mereka telah ter-Hellenisasi—
maksudnya, mereka telah mengasimilasi budaya Greco-Romano, termasuk bahasa
Yunani. Septuaginta, yang mengandung buku-buku deuterokanonika, adalah Alkitab
utama yang digunakan para umat Yahudi diaspora ini.
Kebanyakan umat Yahudi non-Kristen di abad pertama menganggap Gereja sebagai suatu
kultus Yahudi yang bidat dan keliru, mungkin mirip dengan bagaimana umat Kristen
menganggap Mormon atau saksi Yehuwa jaman sekarang ini. Pada abad pertama,
beberapa dekade setelah kehidupan Kristus, mayoritas umat Kristen berasal dari kalangan
non-Yahudi, dan mereka menggunakan Septuaginta Yunani sebagai Perjanjian Lama
mereka, mengikuti contoh umat Yahudi berbahasa Yunani, termasuk Yesus dan para
rasul (note 1, sidebar, page 25).
Ketika umat Kristen mulai menggunakan terjemahan Yunani ini untuk mempertobatkan
orang-orang Yahudi ke iman [Kristen], para Yahudi mulai merasa jijik dengan
terjemahan tersebut (note 2, sidebar, page 25). Apakah mengejutkan siapapun kalau
mereka kemudian mengutuk kanon dan terjemahan yang digunakan umat Kristen, bahkan
kalaupun [kanon dan terjemahan tersebut] pada awalnya diterjemahkan, diakui, dan
disebarkan oleh para Yahudi sendiri tiga ratus lima puluh tahun sebelumnya (c. 250
B.C.)? Gereja awal, yang mengikuti Septuaginta Yunani dan [mengikuti teladan] para
rasul yang menggunakan [Septuaginta Yunani tersebut] (Paulus mengambil kebanyakan
kutipan Perjanjian Lama dari [Septuaginta Yunani]), menerima buku-buku
deuterokanonika. Ketika kanon secara resmi ditutup oleh konsili-konsili Gereja Katolik,
buku-buku ini telah dimasukkan.
Apa yang disebut “Konsili Jabneh” adalah sekelompok pelajar Yahudi yang diberi ijin
oleh Roma pada sekitar tahun 90 untuk bertemu di Palestina didekat Laut Mediterania di
Jabneh (Jamnia). Disini mereka mengadakan sebuah Sanhedrin [catatan DeusVult:
semacam konsili atau mahkamah Yahudi] yang tidak otoritatif dan “reconstituted” (note
3, sidebar, page 25). Diantara hal-hal yang mereka diskusikan adalah kejelasan status dari
beberapa tulisan-tulisan yang ada di Alkitab Yahudi. Mereka juga menolak tulisan-tulisan
Kristen dan membuat sebuah terjemahan baru dari Septuaginta Yunani.
Karena banyak penulis Protestant yang merujuk kepada “Konsili Jabneh” sebagai
argumen melawan buku-buku deuterokanonika yang terdapat di Alkitab Katolik, maka
baiklah bagi kita untuk melihat beberapa contoh [dari rujukan para penulis Protestant
terhadap konsili tersebut].
Dalam buku populernya Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences
(ditulis bersama Ralph MacKenzie [Baker Books, 1995]), Norman Geisler, dekan dari
Southern Evangelical Seminary, menolak kanon Perjanjian Lama Katolik dan mengklaim
bahwa rabbi-rabbi Yahudi di Jabneh mengecualikan buku-buku deuterokanonika yang
diterima umat Katolik dan [meng-klaim] bahwa kanon ditetapkan (di-finalisasi) di
Jabneh.
Geisler menulis, “Para pelajar Yahudi di Jabneh (sekitar A.D. 90) tidak menerima
Apokripha [ie. deuterokanonika] sebagai bagian dari kanon Yahudi yang di-ilhami
[Allah]. Karena Perjanjian Lama secara eksplisit menyatakan bahwa kepada Israel
dipercayakan firman Allah dan [Israel] adalah penerima perjanjian-perjanjian [covenants]
dan Hukum (Rom 3:2), para Yahudi harus dianggap sebagai penjaga dari batasan kanon
mereka sendiri. Dan mereka selalu menolak Apokripha [ie. deuterokanonika]” (169). Dan
meskipun Geisler tampaknya menolak otoritas para rabbi di Jabneh di [bukunya] yang
lain A General Introduction to the Bible (dengan W. E. Nix [Moody Press, 1996]), dia
kemudian menuliskan dalam sebuah diagram, “Konsili Jabneh (A.D. 90), Kanon
Perjanjian Lama ditetapkan” (286).
Geisler tidak sendirian dalam menilai bahwa pada Konsili Jabneh Apokripha ditolak dan
Kanon Perjanjian Lama ditetapkan. Penilaian tersebut tampaknya bagai suatu legenda
umum yang digunakan sebagai “bukti” untuk menguatkan sebuah asumsi tidak historis
dan keliru. Sebelum kita melihat mitos tersebut, kita akan menunjukkan bagaimana
[mitos] tersebut selalu dirujuk. Beberapa contoh akan rujukan yang dibuat pada “Konsili
Jabneh” akan mencukupi:
“Pada akhir abad Kristen pertama, para rabbi Yahudi, pada Konsili Gamnia [Jamnia],
menutup kanon buku Ibrani (yang dipandang otoritatif)” (Jimmy Swaggart, Catholicism
& Christianity [Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 1986], 129).
“Setelah kehancuran Yerusalem, Jamnia menjadi tempat bagi salah satu Sanhedrin
Agung. Pada sekitar [tahun] 100, sebuah konsili para rabbi di tempat tersebut menetapkan
kanon final Perjanjian Lama” (Ed. Martin, Ralph P., dan Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of
the Later New Testament and Its Developments [InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1997], 185).
Meskipun banyak [penulis Protestant] sekarang yang mengakui bahwa Jabneh tidak
mengecualikan buku-buku deuteokanonika atau secara otoritatif menutup kanon
Perjanjian Lama, masih banyak sumber-sumber yang meng-klaim dan mengasumsikan
bahwa hal tersebut dilakukan pada Konsili Jabneh.
Apakah Jabneh punya otoritas ?
Menurut Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, “konsili” di Jabneh pada tahu 90
bahkan bukanlah suatu konsili “resmi” dengan otoritas mengikat untuk membuat
keputusan seperti itu [ie. menetapkan kanon bagi umat Yahudi]:
“Setelah kehancuran Yerusalem (A.D.70), sebuah perserikatan guru-guru agama
didirikan di Jabneh; badan ini dianggap menggantikan Sanhedrin, meskipun [badan ini]
tidak memiliki karakter perwakilan atau otoritas nasional. Tampaknya salah satu subyek
yang didiskusikan diantara para rabbi adalah status dari buku-buku Alkitab tertentu
(sebagai contoh, Pengkhotbah dan Kidung Agung) yang kanonitas-nya masih terbuka
untuk dipertanyakan pada abad pertama. Pandangan bahwa pada sinode Jabneh tertentu,
yang diadakan sekitar 100 AD, yang dengan final menetapkan batasan-batasan dari kanon
Perjanjian Lama, diutarakan oleh H.E. Tyle; meskipun [pandangan tersebut] beredar luas,
tidak ada bukti yang meneguhkannya” (ed. oleh F. L. Cross dan E. A. Livingston [Oxford
Univ. Press, 861], penekanan ditambahkan).
Bukankah menarik bahwa orang Yahudi tidak memiliki sebuah “kanon tertutup” Kitab
Suci pada jaman Kristus, [atau] sebelum tahun 100, atau bahkan setelah Jabneh? Bahkan
selama jaman Kristus ada pandangan-pandangan yang bersaingan mengenai buku-buku
apa yang ada. Para Saduki dan Samaria menerima hanya Pentateukh, lima buku pertama,
sementara Farisi menerima kanon yang lebih penuh termasuk Mazmur dan [tulisan-
tulisan] para nabi. Teks Masoretic tidak mengandung deuterokanonika, sementara
Septuaginta Yunani yang lebih luas dipakai [mengandung deuterokanonika].
Ketidakpastian ini berlanjut sampai abad kedua. Diskusi mengenai buku-buku di kanon
Perjanjian Lama berlangsung diantara orang Yahudi jauh setelah Jabneh, [dimana hal ini]
menunjukkan bahwa kanon masih didiskusikan di abad ketiga—jauh setelah periode
apostolik. Tantangan [yang dibahas] pada Jabneh hanya mengenai Pengkhotbah dan
Kidung Agung, tapi debat mengenai kanon [Perjanjian Lama] terus berlangsung sesudah
Jabneh, bahkan sampai abad kedua dan ketiga. Bahkan kanon Ibrani yang diterima
Protestant sekarang ini diperselisihkan oleh para Yahudi selama dua ratus tahun setelah
Kristus.
Beberapa point yang harus diperhatikan:
1. Meskipun penulis-penulis Kristen sepertinya mengira bahwa ada sebuah
konsili formal di Jabneh, [sebenarnya] tidak ada yang seperti itu. Adalah satu
sekolah untuk mempelajari Hukum [Taurat] di Jabneh, dan para rabbi disana
melakukan fungsi-fungsi legal dalam komunitas Yahudi.
2. Tidak hanya tidak pernah ada suatu konsili formal, tidak ada pula bukti
adanya daftar buku apapun yang dihasilkan di Jabneh.
3. Suatu diskusi spesifik mengenai penerimaan di Jabneh hanyalah [penerimaan]
atas buku Pengkhotbah dan Kidung Agung. Meskipun begitu, argumen
mengenai [status penerimaan buku-buku tersebut] masih terus berlanjut di
Yudaisme berabad-abad setelah periode Jabneh. Juga ada perdebatan-
perdebatan lanjutan mengenai [buku] Ester.
4. Kita tahu bahwa tidak satupun buku dikecualikan di Jabneh. Bahkan, Sirakh,
yang dibaca dan di-kopi oleh para Yahudi setelah periode Jabneh, lama-lama
tidak menjadi bagian dari Alkitab Ibrani (cf. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph
A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary
[Prentice-Hall, 1996, c. 1968], vol. 2, 522).
Mengapa Gereja menolak kanon Yahudi ?
Kalaupun para rabbi di Jabneh memang mempunyai otoritas untuk menetapkan kanon
dan memang telah menutup kanon. Siapa yang bisa berkata bahwa mereka punya otoritas
dari Allah untuk membuat ketetapan yang mengikat tersebut? Mengapa umat Kristen
mesti menerima ketetapan mereka? Allah telah secara publik berpaling dari para Yahudi
sebagai “suara kenabian”-Nya dua puluh tahun sebelum [Jabneh] ketika Yerusalem
dihancurkan dan dibakar api. Allah menghakimi mereka dan menolak kantong-kantong
kulit yang tua [bdk.Mat 9:17]. Anggur tua dan kantongnya (Yudaisme) sekarang telah
diganti dengan anggur baru (Injil) dan kantong-kantong baru (Gereja). Kenapa [malahan]
menerima ketetapan para rabbi yang tidak punya otoritas daripada [ketetapan] Gereja?
Ada alasan lebih lanjut mengapa kita tidak seharusnya bersandar kepada para Yahudi
abad pertama atas ketetapan mereka mengenai kanon [Perjanjian Lama], bahkan
kalaupun mereka telah membuatketetapan seperti itu: Para rabbi di Jabneh kemudian
menghasilkan sebuah terjemahan Yunani baru untuk menggantikan terjemahan
Spetuaginta mereka sebelumnya. Mengapa? Karena umat Kristen non-Yahudi
menggunakan Spetuaginta untuk tujuan apologetik dan penginjilan—dengan kata lain,
mereka mempertobatkan umat Yahudi [catatan DeusVult: menjadi Kristen Katolik
tentunya] dengan menggunakan Kitab Suci Yunani milik mereka sendiri!
Sebagai contoh, mereka [umat Kristen] menggunakan Septuaginta untuk membuktikan
kelahiran perawan atas Yesus. Di Alkitab Ibrani, Yesaya 7:14 ditulis, “Seorang wanita
muda akan mengandung dan melahirkan seorang putra,” sementara di Septuaginta
Yunani, yang dikutip Matius (1:23), ditulis, “Seorang perawan akan mengandung dan
melahirkan seorang putra” (penekanan ditambahkan). Para rabbi yang mestinya
“menetapkan” kanon Protestant juga meng-otorisasi sebuah terjemahan Yunani baru yang
secara spesifik menghalang-halangi injil. Aquila, penerjemah Yahudi untuk versi baru
tersebut, mengingkari Kalahiran Perawan dan merubah kata Yunani dari perawan
menjadi wanita muda.
Salah satu issu utama dalam pemikiran Yahudi abad pertama mengenai kanon bukanlah
mengenai [status] ilham [ilahi dari buku-buku Kitab Suci] tetapi melawan penginjilan
Kristen terhadap orang Yahudi dan non-Yahudi. Issue [utamanya] adalah Yahudi
melawan ajaran Kristen baru dan penggunaan umat Kristiani atas Kitab Suci Yahudi yang
berbahasa Yunani. Cukup aneh bagi Protestant untuk memilih kanon yang dipotong
pendek yang dipilih oleh pemimpin-pemimpin Yahudi, dan karena tindakan tersebut
mereka menempatkan diri di sisi Yahudi yang anti-Kristen dan telah ditanggalkan
[otoritasnya].
Kita tidak tahu banyak mengenai hasil-hasil dari Jabneh, tapi kita tahu bahwa mereka
menyebut Injil Perjanjian Baru. Mereka menyebutnya untuk secara spesifik menolaknya.
F. F. Bruce menulis, “Beberapa yang berdebat juga bertanya apakah Kebijaksanaan
Yesus bin Sirakh (Sirakh), dan gilyonim (tulisan-tulisan injil Aramaic) dan beberapa
buku-buku dari para minim (para bidat, termasuk umat Kristen Yahudi), harus diakui,
namun dalam hal ini jawabannya adalah negatif tanpa kompromi” (The Books and the
Parchments [Fleming H. Revell, 1984], 88).
Kebanyakan Protestant menerima perlawanan para Yahudi atas kanon Kitab Suci Katolik
karena [perlawanan tersebut] mendukung ke-anti-Katolik-an mereka. Namun umat
Katolik telah menerima ketetapan dan kanon dari umat Allah Perjanjian Baru, mereka
yang adalah para imamat baru (bdk. 1 Pet 2:9), kantong-kantong anggur baru.
Sebagaimana kita perhatikan di awal-awal, komentar Geisler, “Karena Perjanjian Lama
secara eksplisit menyatakan bahwa kepada Israel dipercayakan firman Allah dan [Israel]
adalah penerima perjanjian-perjanjian [covenants] dan Hukum (Rom 3:2), para Yahudi
harus dianggap sebagai penjaga dari batasan kanon mereka sendiri.” (Roman Catholics
and Evangelicals, 169).
Apakah aku mesti menerima ketetapan pada rabbi sebagai sesuatu yang otoritatif dan
mengikat bagi jiwaku, ketika jubah otoritas telah diberikan kepada Gereja oleh tindakan
Roh Kudus? Apakah Geisler memberi pembaca-pembacanya informasi historis dan
timeline ini, [yang bisa] mengingatkan [para pembacanya] bahwa Allah telah berpaling
dari umat Yahudi dan menghancurkan kuil mereka sebelum “konsili” tanpa otoritas
tersebut menolak Injil dan “seluruh kanon Kristen,” termasuk Perjanjian Baru?
Orang Yahudi tidak mempunyai kanon tertutup sebelum tahun 300AD, dan mereka
“membentengi [kanon]” supaya umat Kristen tetap diluar. Mengapa bergantung kepada
mereka? Aku menerima kanon para rasul dan Gereja awal, yang telah ditetapkan oleh
Uskup-Uskup Gereja. Dan, seperti mereka, aku tidak menerima kanon dari pemimpin-
pemimpin Yahudi anti-Kristen.
(Beberapa Bapa Gereja Awal, seperti Hieronimus, menerima kanon Masoretic Yahudi,
tapi tidak pernah satu Bapa Gereja Awal secara individu yang membuat keputusan
mengikat bagi Gereja, hanya konsili-konsili [Gereja] yang dapat melakukannya)
Kanon Perjanjian Lama tidak ditutup di Jabneh, dan deuterokanonika juga tidak
dikecualikan dari Perjanjian Lama di Jabneh. Siapa yang mempunyai otoritas dari Allah
untuk menetapkan dan menutup kanon Kitab Suci? Sederhananya, Gereja. Hierarkhi
Yahudi pada masa Kristus meng-klaim otoritas untuk mengikat dan melepas, [dimana
istilah “mengikat dan melepas”] dengan jelas dipahami sebagai istilah tekhnis, tapi Yesus
secara spesifik menetapkan sebuah hierarkhi baru atas “Israel baru” — [yaitu] Gereja —
dan memindahkan kepada magisterium baru ini kuasa untuk mengikat dan melepas (Matt.
16:19; 18:18). Gereja, karenanya, ditunjuk untuk berbicara bagi Allah, dan kanon final
Kitab Suci termasuk dalam otoritas [Gereja].
Penulis Protestant Paul Achtemeier memberitahu kita, “tradisi Timur dan Katolik Roma
umumnya menganggap buku-buku ‘apokripha’ Perjanjian Lama sebagai bagian dari
kanon. Baru setelah munculnya Reformasi Protestantisme buku-buku tersebut ditolak
status kanonikalnya (di lingkungan Protestant). Namun Gereja Roma tetap meneguhkan
tempat [buku-buku tersebut] di kanon Kitab Suci” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1st ed.
[Harper & Row, c1985], 69).
Pada Konsili Trent Gereja menyelesaikan masalah tersebut dengan mendaftarkan secara
definitif buku-buku yang diterima, termasuk deutero-kanonika, dan Katekismus Gereja
Katolik meneguhkan daftar ini (KGK 120). Inilah Alkitab Katolik yang kita punyai saat
ini.
Tidakkah menarik bahwa Martin Luther mengakui Gereja Katolik sebagai penjaga Kitab
Suci (note 5, sidebar, page 25) ketika dia menulis, “Kami mengakui — sebagaimana
kami harus — bahwa banyak yang mereka [Gereja Katolik] katakan adalah benar: [yaitu]
bahwa kepausan memiliki firman Allah dan jabatan para rasul, dan bahwa kami
menerima kitab suci, baptisan, sakramen, dan mimbar dari mereka. Apa yang kita ketahui
akan semua ini kalau tidak berkat mereka (Katolik)?”

The Apostle John

JOHN, THE APOSTLE. Second most prominent member of the Twelve, John the son of
Zebedee was one of the best remembered as witnessed in lit., tradition, art, and
archeology. Basic to a study of the man are the literary sources on which the researcher
depends.

I. Sources

II. Life history

The amount of lit. relating to John and his writings is very large in NT studies. More has
been written about him and attributed to him than any of the other twelve apostles.

I. Sources

Outline

Most of the information about John the son of Zebedee comes from the NT itself; there
is no mention of him in Josephus, for example.

A. Sources that refer to John the apostle

1. Canonical books. a. THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. The record of the first three gospels states
that John had a brother whose name was James and a father whose name was Zebedee,
a fisherman residing near Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee (Matt 4:21, 22; Mark
1:19, 20; Luke 5:10). The mother of John is believed to be Salome. This is inferred from a
comparison of Mark 16:1 and Matthew 27:56. The third woman accompanying the two
women to the tomb is called Salome by Mark and by Matthew, “the mother of the sons
of Zebedee.” In John 19:25, the third woman at the cross is said to be the sister of Jesus’
mother, hence Jesus and John would be first cousins. This would help to explain the
command given by Jesus at the cross, “Son, behold thy mother” (John 19:27). The name
of John appears on each of the lists of the names of the apostles in the synoptic gospels
(Matt 10:2; Mark 3:17; Luke 6:14). John and his brother James were termed “sons of
thunder” by the Master (Mark 3:17). In at least three instances John was among the
three of the inner circle who were with Jesus at the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark
5:37; Luke 8:51), at the Transfiguration of Jesus (Matt 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28), and with
Jesus in a portion of the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33). He was
among the four who asked Jesus about the coming events (Mark 13:3, 4). The synoptic
records present Peter as the leader of the apostles and John, along with James, the next
two influential ones. Only once is John mentioned alone in these sources when he asked
whether they should forbid one who was casting out demons in the name of Jesus
(Mark 9:38; Luke 9:49).
b. THE ACTS AND EPISTLES. In Acts, James is in the background and John is ranked along
with Peter as one of the two leaders in the apostolic circle. Peter was spokesman for the
group (Acts 1; 2). John was with Peter at the healing of the lame man (Acts 3:1ff.), and
was arrested and placed on trial with Peter (4:3-21); together they investigated the
reception by the Samaritans of the Word of God (8:14-25).

The only reference to John in the epistles is in Galatians 2:9 where John, together with
Peter and James, the Lord’s brother, are refered to as “pillars” in the Early Church. The
fact that John was alive at this time after the death of his brother James (Acts 12:1, 2)
refutes a late tradition that he was martyred at the same time as his brother James.

2. Noncanonical sources. Earliest patristic records make little mention of John, but he is
very prominent in the records from the latter part of the 2nd cent. through the 4th. One
of the earliest extracanonical sources was a Gnostic document titled the Acts of John,
dated “not later than the middle of the second century” (M. R. James, The Apocryphal
New Testament [1924], p. 228). This work contains a report of miracles and discourses
attributed to the Apostle John near Ephesus. It tells of his return from Patmos, a
shipwreck, the healing of Cleopatra and the raising of her husband to life, the
destruction of the temple of Artemis, and many other tales. In it “John” tells of his early
association with Jesus. It closes with an account of John’s death at which time he was
thankful for his celibate life. The book is strongly Docetic in nature, quite at variance
with the emphasis of the First Epistle of John. No confidence can be placed in this
document as a historical source for the Apostle John.

The earliest known exegesis of John’s gospel is that of Ptolemaus, of the school of
Valentinus. Dated at approximately A.D. 150, it speaks of the fourth gospel as having
been written by John, the Lord’s disciple (Iren. Her. I. 8. 5.). Another early commentator
was a Gnostic named Heracleon who flourished in the latter half of the 2nd cent. In his
commentary on John 1:18, he implies that the author of this v. was a disciple of the Lord,
namely, the Apostle John. There is an indirect reference to John the apostle as the
author of the fourth gospel in Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. A.D. 160). Another writing entitled,
“The Secret Book of John,” is found in the Berlin Gnostic papyrus and in the recently
discovered Gnostic library at Nag-Hammadi in Egypt. It contains this interesting
passage: “one day when John, the brother of James (these are the sons of Zebedee),
went up to the temple, there a Pharisee...said to him ‘This Nazarene deceived you’” (R.
M. Grant, Gnosticism [1961], p. 69). Other Gnostic works, such as the Gospel of Philip,
quote extensively from the fourth gospel but do not mention the author, the implication
being that they believed John the apostle to be the author.

By far the most impressive of these witnesses to John the apostle comes from Irenaeus
who flourished in the last quarter of the 2nd cent. It is he who testifies to a personal
acquaintance with Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who had learned the Gospel directly
from John and others who had seen the Lord. Irenaeus adds that after the three synoptic
gospels had been written, “John, the disciple of the Lord who also had leaned upon his
breast, did himself write a gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (Iren. Her., III.
i. 1). He also states that Polycarp taught that John, a disciple of the Lord, saw Cerinthus
in the public bath and fled saying, “Let us flee, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is
within.” He states that the church at Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John
remaining among them until the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117), is a true witness of the
tradition of the church (Iren. Her., III. iii. 4). Another witness is Polycrates, bishop of
Ephesus (A.D. 189-198) who stated that “John, who also leaned on the Lord’s breast, who
was a priest wearing a mitre and marter, witness and teacher, he sleeps at Ephesus”
(cited in Euseb. Hist. III. xxxi. 3). Eusebius (c. A.D. 325) accepted and quoted this evidence
as indicating John as author of the “undoubted writings of this apostle.” He presents
him as having lived to a very old age contemporary with the emperors Domitian, Nerva,
and Trajan, and bishops Clement, Ignatius, and Simeon. This John he concludes, wrote
the fourth gospel, “read in all the churches under heaven” as an undoubted writing of
the apostle. He adds that whereas the fourth gospel and the first epistle are
undoubtedly the works of the apostle the second and third epistles and the Apocalypse
perhaps may be the works of others by the name of John (Euseb. Hist. III. xxxiv. 13).

B. Canonical books attributed to John the Apostle

1. The gospel. The date to be gleaned from the fourth gospel is dependent upon the
extent to which references to the “beloved disciple” designate the Apostle John. The
identity of the “beloved disciple” has been widely questioned, esp. in recent times. Some
say the “beloved disciple” was Nicodemus; others that it was Lazarus; while some believe
it to be the Matthias, chosen by lot (Acts 1). Because the writer was familiar with the
inner councils of the apostolic twelve, the process of elimination reduces the possible
candidates to only one, namely, John the son of Zebedee. If, therefore, he is admitted to
be the author of the gospel that bears his name, one can find additional data
concerning John, son of Zebedee. This John is not mentioned by name in the fourth
gospel; a phenomenon interpreted by many as another evidence that he is the author.
He is named as one of the first two recruited by Jesus in the Jordan Valley where John
was baptizing (John 1:40). He is singled out at the Last Supper as the one reclining close
to Jesus (13:23). The “beloved disciple” is mentioned at the Last Supper (13:23-26), at
the cross where he was commanded to take Jesus’ mother to his own home (19:26, 27),
at the empty tomb (20:2-10), and at the Sea of Tiberias where he was the first to
recognize the risen Jesus (21:7). The term again appears in connection with anxiety
about the statement concerning his future (21:20-23). He is specifically stated to be the
author of this gospel in the postscript (21:24).
The author of the first epistle likewise appears to have been an eyewitness (1 John 1:1-
3). If the apostle wrote the fourth gospel it seems certain that he also wrote the first
epistle. This is the easiest way to account for the high degree of similarity in language
and ideas between the two documents. Common to both is the vocabulary of simple
words, which include knowledge, world, witness, life, and truth.

2. The epistles. The author of the second and third epistles is said to be the Elder. The
evidence that this is written by the author of the gospel and the first epistle is somewhat
less weighty than that for a common authorship of the gospel and the first epistle. On
the basis of Papias, quoted by Eusebius, the author of these two short letters as well as
the Apocalypse could well have been another John, named the Elder (Euseb. Hist. III.
xxxix. 13).

3. The Apocalypse. The author of the Apocalypse describes himself simply as a fellow
servant named John. He does not address them from the viewpoint of an apostle or
even that of an elder, rather, that of a brother, a companion in tribulation. The style,
likewise, is different from that of the epistle or gospel, as many, from the time of
Clement of Alexandria on down, have noticed. Those who reject the apostolic authorship
of the gospel are more ready to admit it in reference to the Apocalypse, for the author
of the Apocalypse seems to fit better the synoptic description of John as the “son of
thunder” and as one who would like to command fire to come down to consume the
noncommitted. Many think the same person could not have written books as diverse as
the fourth gospel and the Apocalypse. But one cannot be sure that the difference of
circumstances would in itself be sufficient reason for the change of style and imagery
encountered in the Apocalypse. There are many other instances in history when widely
diverse literary styles come from the same source, but under different circumstances.
This may be seen, for example, in the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Luther, Kipling.

II. Life history

After sifting the sources and evaluating them, the life of John the son of Zebedee may
be summarized in the following sequence. He was a convert of John the Baptist and
spent some time with the proclaimer of the new covenant in the Jordan Valley. It was
here that he met Jesus and transferred his allegiance from John to Jesus (John 1:19-42).
Some time after this, when John and his brother James had resumed fishing, they again
encountered Jesus by the Sea of Galilee and at once decided to follow Him (Matt
4:21; Mark 1:19, 20; Luke 5:10). The four partners, all fishermen, joined Jesus at the same
time. They continued with Jesus through His Galilean ministry, witnessing the events
reported chiefly in the synoptic gospels. He was chosen along with eleven others as one
of the Twelve (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:17; Luke 6:14). As indicated earlier, he was an
eyewitness of the raising of Jairus’ daughter along with James and Peter (Mark
5:37; Luke 8:51). He was one of the three with Jesus on the mountain when the
Transfiguration occurred (Matt 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28). When enroute to Jerusalem
John became incensed at the hostility of a Samaritan village (Luke 9:54). His mistaken
zeal is indicated by his rebuke of the man who was casting out demons without Jesus’
authorization (Mark 9:38; Luke 9:49). The two “sons of thunder” threatened their
relationship with the other ten by seeking a favored position in the future kingdom
(Matt 20:20; Mark 10:35; cf. Luke 22:24). Just before the Passover, John and Peter were
commissioned by Jesus to prepare a place for partaking of the Passover (Luke 22:8). At
the Last Supper, according to the Johannine account, it was the son of Zebedee who,
reclining close to Jesus, first learned the identity of the betrayer. However, he seems not
to have passed this information on to Peter, who had requested the information (John
13:21-26). Later in Gethsemane John, with Peter and James, went a little further during
the time of Jesus’ agony (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33). It is widely believed that the unnamed
disciple who entered the court of the high priest with Peter was John the apostle (John
18:15-18), because this disciple was known to the high priest. The “beloved disciple”
again is seen as the only disciple who witnessed the crucifixion. In response to Jesus’
request, this disciple took Jesus’ mother into his own home (19:25-27). This disciple is
mentioned as the first to recognize the significance of the empty tomb (20:1-8). At the
Sea of Tiberias it was this disciple who first identified Jesus on the shore and reported to
Peter, “It is the Lord” (21:4-7). The two are linked again in the episode following Jesus’
statement: “If it is my will that he remain until I come...” which evoked much speculation
as to its meaning (21:20-23). He is linked with Peter in several important episodes
reported in Acts. He was a prominent member of the Jerusalem church when Paul
visited it later. Nothing further is known about him until, according to church tradition
(related chiefly through Irenaeus but with many corroborating witnesses) he was bishop
at Ephesus. This literary evidence is supported by the remains of churches bearing his
name at Ephesus. There he was remembered as a vigorous champion of orthodoxy,
which fits the description of the first epistle. He is reported to have brought back to
Christ an errant convert at the risk of his own life. His exile in Patmos during the last
decade of the 1st cent. coincides with the persecution of Domitian. A conflict between
church and state reflected in the Book of Revelation also seems consistent with this
pictu re of John’s latter days.

The character and temperament of the Apostle John as seen in these sources is one who
maintained high Christology in stressing Jesus as the Son of God. He was thoroughly
familiar with the OT and with Jewish culture in general, as seen in the synoptic gospels
and Acts. His spiritual insight and maturity led to his inclusion in the inner circle on
several occasions. This is consistent with the picture in the fourth gospel as one for
whom Jesus had a special affection. On the negative side John had an apparent
ambition for preferential treatment. His reaction to the inhospitality of the Samaritans
indicates a certain volatile nature, which could easily pass from righteous indignation to
vindictiveness. As reflected in the fourth gospel, he is seen to be one who quickly
acquired an acute understanding of the Hel. mind as indicated by his vocabulary that
demonstrates an ability to communicate to the sophisticated as well as to the simple. He
tended to see things in simple terms of black and white, good and evil; there were few
median shades of gray in his perspective. To him everyone was either for or against the
Lord; either a child of God or a child of the devil; either a child of light or a child of
darkness. Christian maturity brought a measure of gentility to his natural sanguine
temperament so that he became preeminently the “apostle of love” as his first epistle
bears witness.

These two elements in his nature continued apparently to the end. In the first epistle,
perhaps the last thing he wrote, there is the emphasis upon love and life and a
corresponding warning against heresy and sin. As reflected in the Apocalypse he is the
“son of thunder” living between two worlds, the world of the righteous who were
overcome by their testimony, and the world of the wicked who persist in unbelief even
under affliction. There is the same insistence on walking in the light and living according
to the law of love. Thus he is seen to be a person with many facets, a Hebrew of the
Hebrews, who was able to communicate his ideas in the medium of Hel. idiom to the
intellectually elite of his day, yet who could speak to the simplest in elemental terms,
e.g., light, life, darkness, water, and bread.

Bibliography C. F. Nolloth, The Fourth Evangelist (1925); J. H. Bernard, The Gospel

According to St. John (1929), I. xxxiv-lxxviii; F. V. Filson, “Who Was The Beloved Disciple?”
JBL, LXVIII (1949), 83-88; E. L. Titus, “The Identity of The Beloved Disciple,” JBL, LXIX
(1950), 323-328; C. Goodwin, ‘How Did John Treat His Sources?” JBL, LXXIII (1954), 61-75;
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (1955); R. H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel, A
Commentary (1956); P. Parker, “John the Son of Zebedee and The Fourth Gospel,” JBL,
LXXXI (1962), 35-43; G. A. Turner and J. R. Mantey, Evangelical Commentary on John’s
Gospel (1964); J. W. Bowker, “The Origin and Purpose of St. John’s Gospel,” NTS, XI
(1965), 398-408; E. Malatesta, St. John’s Gospel (1965); J. Marsh, Saint John (1968).